3

hinting at what was being signified; for the Word of God, being made flesh, came down, because, being in the form of God, He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant; but Luke, if he were going to declare His incarnate presence in the same way as Matthew, would certainly have also used the history of the family, at the time of the conception or the birth; and consequently beginning from the older ones, he would have come down to the last ones; but since he did not set forth the narrative with the same intention as Matthew, reasonably passing over the same time as him, he comes to the regeneration through the font; and here he sets forth the opposite succession of generations, both leading up from the last to the first, and also shaking off the memory of the culpable and sinful men in Matthew, since he who has been regenerated with God, becomes a stranger to the fleshly birth and to the sinful fathers according to the flesh, being declared the Son of God, and of all those who have lived blamelessly according to God; thus it was also said to Abraham: “But you shall go to your fathers;” the word hinting not at those according to the flesh, but at those in God through the similarity of piety.

7. Reasonably, therefore, Luke, since he is narrating the regeneration, does not travel the same road as Matthew; he has not, then, made mention of Solomon and of Uriah's wife, not of Tamar, not of Ruth, not of Jeconiah and the men of ill repute in between, but he ascends through other blameless men, and indeed he introduces the one who was regenerated from the prophet Nathan. And the one born according to the flesh in Matthew was a son of Abraham, being traced in genealogy from there, since to Abraham first was the promise given of the blessing of the nations, which was to happen in no other way than through him who would come forth from his seed 22.965. But the one regenerated in God, having ascribed to himself other fathers according to God, not even having them truly, but as was supposed because of the similarity of characters, ascends to the true Father after all, being named Son of God; but let this account be delivered by us in secret. But lest anyone should suppose that we are inventing arguments, I will also use a very ancient history from which it is possible to find the solution to the supposed discrepancy between both evangelists. And the author of the history was Africanus, a learned man and renowned among those who come from secular education; of whom, besides many other fine treatises, there is also extant a letter to Aristides concerning the supposed discrepancy of the evangelists regarding the genealogy of Christ; it is as follows. FROM AFRICANUS.

8. Some, however, say not accurately, that this different enumeration and intermingling of names justly occurred, both of the priestly, as they think, and of the royal, so that Christ might be shown to have justly become both priest and king; as if anyone were disbelieving or had another hope, that Christ is the high priest of the Father, offering up our prayers to Him, and a super-cosmic king, apportioning to the Spirit those whom He freed, having become a co-worker in the ordering of all things. And this was announced to us not by the catalogue of the tribes, not by the mixing of the recorded generations, but by patriarchs and prophets. Let us not then descend to such petty reasoning about piety, so as to establish the kingship and priesthood of Christ by the interchange of names; since the priestly tribe of Levi was joined to the royal tribe of Judah, when Aaron took Elisheba, the sister of Nahshon, to wife, and again Eleazar the daughter of Putiel, and from these had children. Did the evangelists then lie, establishing not a truth, but a conjectured praise? and for this reason the one traced the genealogy through Solomon from David to Jacob the father of Joseph; while the other, from Nathan, son of David, to Heli, the father of Joseph, likewise of others; and yet it was not right for them to be ignorant, that each of the enumerated lines is the family of David, the royal tribe of Judah. For if Nathan was a prophet, yet still

3

αἰνιττόμενος τοῦ δηλουμένου· σαρκούμενος γὰρ ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ κατῄει, ὅτι δὴ ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων ἐκένωσεν ἑαυτὸν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών· ὁ δὲ Λουκᾶς, εἰ μὲν ὁμοίως τῷ Ματθαίῳ τὴν ἔνσαρκον ἔμελλεν αὐτοῦ παρουσίαν δηλοῦν, πάντως ἂν ἐχρήσατο καὶ αὐτὸς τῇ τοῦ γένους ἱστορίᾳ, κατὰ τὸν τῆς συλλήψεως ἢ τῆς ἀποτέξεως καιρόν· καὶ ἀκολούθως ἀπὸ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ἀρξάμενος, κατῄει ἐπὶ τοὺς τελευταίους· ἐπεὶ δὲ οὐ κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν τῷ Ματθαίῳ διάνοιαν ἐξέθετο τὴν διήγησιν, εἰκότως τὸν αὐτὸν ἐκείνῳ καιρὸν ὑπερβὰς, ἐπὶ τὴν ἀναγέννησιν τὴν διὰ λουτροῦ παραγίνεται· καὶ ἐνταῦθα τὴν ἐναντίαν ἐκτίθεται τῶν γενῶν διαδοχὴν, ὁμοῦ καὶ ἀνάγων ἀπὸ τῶν ὑστάτων ἐπὶ τὰ πρῶτα, ὁμοῦ καὶ τὴν μνήμην τῶν παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ ὑπαιτίων καὶ ἁμαρτωλῶν ἀνδρῶν ἀποσειόμενος, ἐπειδήπερ ὁ παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ ἀναγεγεννημένος, ἀλλότριος καθίσταται τῆς ἐνσάρκου γενέσεως καὶ τῶν κατὰ σάρκα ἁμαρτωλῶν πατέρων, Υἱὸς ἀποφαινόμενος Θεοῦ, καὶ πάντων τῶν κατὰ Θεὸν ἀνεπιλήπτως βεβιωκότων· οὕτω καὶ τῷ Ἀβραὰμ εἴρητο· «Σὺ δὲ ἀπελεύσῃ πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας σου·» οὐ τοὺς κατὰ σάρκα, τοὺς δὲ ἐν Θεῷ διὰ τὴν εὐσεβείας ὁμοιοτροπίαν αἰνιττομένου τοῦ λόγου.

ζʹ. Εἰκότως τοιγαροῦν ὁ Λουκᾶς, ἅτε τὴν ἀναγέννησιν ἱστορῶν, οὐ τὴν αὐτὴν ὁδεύει τῷ Ματθαίῳ· οὔτ' οὖν τοῦ Σολομῶνος καὶ τῆς Οὐρίου. οὐ τῆς Θάμαρ, οὐ τῆς Ῥοὺθ, οὐ τοῦ Ἰεχονίου καὶ τῶν μεταξὺ διαβεβλημένων ἀνδρῶν τὴν παράθεσιν πεποίηται, ἀλλὰ δι' ἑτέρων ἀνεπιλήπτων ἄνεισι, καὶ δὲ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ προφήτου Νάθαν τὸν ἀναγεγεννημένον εἰσάγει. Καὶ ὁ μὲν παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ κατὰ σάρκα γεγεννημένος, υἱὸς ἦν Ἀβραὰμ, ἐντεῦθεν γενεαλογούμενος, ἐπειδήπερ τῷ Ἀβραὰμ πρώτῳ ἡ ἐπαγγελία δέδοτο τῆς τῶν ἐθνῶν εὐλογίας, οὐκ ἄλλως ἢ διὰ τοῦ ἐκ σπέρμα 22.965 τος αὐτοῦ προελευσομένου γενησομένη. Ὁ δὲ ἐν Θεῷ ἀναγεγεννημένος, ἑτέρους πατέρας τοὺς κατὰ Θεὸν ἐπιγραψάμενος, οὐδ' αὐτοὺς ἀληθῶς ἐσχηκὼς, ἀλλ' ὡς ἐνομίζετο διὰ τὴν τῶν ἠθῶν ὁμοιοτροπίαν, ἄνεισιν ἐπὶ τὸν ἀληθῆ Πατέρα μετὰ πάντας χρηματίσας Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ· ἀλλ' οὗτος μὲν ἐν ἀποῤῥήτοις ἡμῖν ἀποδόσθω ὁ λόγος. Ἵνα δὲ μή τις ἡμᾶς εὑρεσιλογεῖν ὑπολάβοι, καὶ ἱστορίᾳ χρήσομαι παλαιοτάτῃ παρ' ἧς ἔστι τὴν λύσιν εὑρεῖν τῆς νενομισμένης παρ' ἀμφοτέροις τοῖς εὐαγγελισταῖς διαφωνίας. Τῆς δὲ ἱστορίας γέγονε συγγραφεὺς Ἀφρικανὸς, ἀνὴρ λόγιος καὶ τοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς ἔξωθεν παιδείας ὁρμωμένοις ἐπιφανής· οὗ πρὸς ἄλλοις πολλοῖς καὶ καλοῖς λόγοις, καὶ ἐπιστολὴ φέρεται πρὸς Ἀριστείδην περὶ τῆς νενομισμένης τῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν περὶ τὴν Χριστοῦ γενεαλογίαν διαφωνίας· ἔχει δ' οὕτως. ΑΦΡΙΚΑΝΟΥ.

ηʹ. Οὐκ ἀκριβῶς μέντοι τινὲς λέγουσιν, ὅτι δικαίως γέγονεν ἡ διάφορος αὕτη τῶν ὀνομάτων καταρίθμησίς τε καὶ ἐπιμιξία, τῶν τε ἱερατικῶν, ὡς οἴονται, καὶ τῶν βασιλικῶν, ἵνα δειχθῇ δικαίως ὁ Χριστὸς ἱερεύς τε καὶ βασιλεὺς γενόμενος· ὥσπερ τινὸς ἀπειθοῦντος ἢ ἑτέραν ἐσχηκότος ἐλπίδα, ὅτι ὁ Χριστὸς ἀρχιερεύς ἐστι Πατρὸς, τὰς ἡμετέρας πρὸς αὐτὸν εὐχὰς ἀναφέρων, καὶ βασιλεὺς ὑπερκόσμιος, οὓς ἠλευθέρωσε νέμων τῷ Πνεύματι, συνεργὸς εἰς τὴν διακόσμησιν τῶν ὅλων γενόμενος. Καὶ τοῦτο ἡμῖν προσήγγειλεν οὐχ ὁ κατάλογος τῶν φυλῶν, οὐχ ἡ μίξις τῶν ἀναγράπτων γενῶν, ἀλλὰ πατριάρχαι καὶ προφῆται. Μὴ οὖν κατίωμεν εἰς τοσαύτην θεοσεβείας σμικρολογίαν, ἵνα τῇ ἐναλλαγῇ τῶν ὀνομάτων, τὴν Χριστοῦ βασιλείαν καὶ ἱερωσύνην συνιστῶμεν· ἐπεὶ τῇ Ἰούδα φυλῇ τῇ βασιλικῇ, ἡ τοῦ Λευὶ φυλὴ ἱερατικὴ συνεζύγη, τοῦ Ναασσὼν ἀδελφὴν τὴν Ἐλισάβετ Ἀαρὼν ἀξαμένου,καὶ πάλιν Ἐλεάζαρ τὴν θυγατέρα Φατιὴλ, καὶ ἐνθένδε παιδοποιησαμένων. Ἐψεύσαντο οὖν οἱ εὐαγγελισταὶ, συνιστάντες οὐκ ἀλήθειαν, ἀλλ' εἰκαζόμενον ἔπαινον· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ὁ μὲν διὰ Σολομῶνος ἀπὸ ∆αυῒδ ἐγενεαλόγησεν τὸν Ἰακὼβ τὸν τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ πατέρα· ὁ δὲ Νάθαν τοῦ ∆αυῒδ, τὸν Ἡλεὶ τὸν τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ ὁμοίωςἄλλων πατέρα· καίτοι ἀγνοεῖν αὐτοὺς οὐκ ἐχρῆν, ὡς ἑκατέρα τῶν κατηριθμημένων τάξις, τὸ τοῦ ∆αυΐδ ἐστι γένος, ἡ τοῦ Ἰούδα φυλὴ βασιλική. Εἰ γὰρ προφήτης ὁ Νάθαν, ἀλλ' οὖν